Most dominant team you've assembled/seen

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Not meaning to be heretical or anything, but with so many people assembling utterly dominant teams in this game, is it possible that it might be a bit too easy to do?

Oh, I don't think there's any doubt that it is too easy to do if you go all out to try to do so.

There are many things that can be done to create a dominant team that are less than sporting imo. f.e exploiting the ai in trades (it's not so great at making deals with multiple players included on each side of the deal f.e.), playing with ratings on (I tend to play with them mostly invisible now, in a sort of stats only mode), scouting set to high accuracy (or turning scouting off entirely), making sure you get only the best scouts/coaches, giving yourself a huge budget, or just picking the biggest budget teams, even using the editor to give your players talent boosts if that's the sort of thing you're into.

But if you play the game without visible ratings, or even with visible ratings but without taking advantage of a lot of the above mentioned stuff, then I'd say it's not really that easy to create a dominant team. In fact it can be quite difficult to even create a decent team at times.

[chucksabr]

Perhaps this is all subject to selection bias because maybe people tend to post when they dominate and not when they're getting dominated. I can say that after a cursory review of the dynasties, it seems to me that a high number of people who pilot a specific team end up reeling off championship after championship, and post seasons of 110 or 120 or even more wins, and do so more than history itself has.

I'm guessing there are some people who manipulate the system, post the results and beat their chests, and as someone here earlier said, god bless them if that's what they want to do. It's their right. If someone manipulates the Game, he should win, and if that makes him happy, that's awesome.

I guess I'm just wondering if it's easier than it "should" be if someone doesn't game the Game, and play it honestly and straight up, as though the AI were designed to be one step behind the average baseball mind. If that's the case, then personally, I would find it less interesting, and satisfying, to succeed by just being an ordinary GM. Am I making sense?

Again, that's just me. I'm using this Game for different purposes at the moment, but I am also noodling taking a crap team and seeing how fast I can turn them into a winner. But if I could regularly make the 1962 Mets the 1964 World Champions, for instance, without manipulating the Game, that wouldn't present much of a challenge.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Oh, I don't think there's any doubt that it is too easy to do if you go all out to try to do so.

There are many things that can be done to create a dominant team that are less than sporting imo. f.e exploiting the ai in trades (it's not so great at making deals with multiple players included on each side of the deal f.e.), playing with ratings on (I tend to play with them mostly invisible now, in a sort of stats only mode), scouting set to high accuracy (or turning scouting off entirely), making sure you get only the best scouts/coaches, giving yourself a huge budget, or just picking the biggest budget teams, even using the editor to give your players talent boosts if that's the sort of thing you're into.

But if you play the game without visible ratings, or even with visible ratings but without taking advantage of a lot of the above mentioned stuff, then I'd say it's not really that easy to create a dominant team. In fact it can be quite difficult to even create a decent team at times.

Does playing the Game with visible ratings confer an unfair advantage for the player? I don't understand why, because wouldn't AI have access to the same information? Or are the ratings too perfect a tool for anyone to have, as though there is no analog in real life?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Does playing the Game with visible ratings confer an unfair advantage for the player? I don't understand why, because wouldn't AI have access to the same information? Or are the ratings too perfect a tool for anyone to have, as though there is no analog in real life?

I wouldn't call it an unfair advantage since, as you say, the ai does have access to the ratings. But it does provide much more precise information regarding players skills and potential than a real life gm would have access to.

Having all the ratings visible does make the game easier, especially if you play with low PCM's so that talent levels/potentials don't change much over time.

It also makes it much easier to spot when a player is entering his decline phase, and makes it much easier to spot prospects who are breaking out or declining, since it's usually visible in the ratings progression even before any talent gains of losses are fully completed.

Overall, it's probably more the case that turning the ratings invisible simply provides an extra challenge and additional realism, than that having them on provides some sort of especially unfair advantage.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Overall, it's probably more the case that turning the ratings invisible simply provides an extra challenge and additional realism, than that having them on provides some sort of especially unfair advantage.

Exactly. This is why I play stats-only.

[fromtheline]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Exactly. This is why I play stats-only.

This sounds like a really cool idea. How could I set it up to be stats-only? And how would drafting work?

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Oh, I don't think there's any doubt that it is too easy to do if you go all out to try to do so.

There are many things that can be done to create a dominant team that are less than sporting imo. f.e exploiting the ai in trades (it's not so great at making deals with multiple players included on each side of the deal f.e.), playing with ratings on (I tend to play with them mostly invisible now, in a sort of stats only mode), scouting set to high accuracy (or turning scouting off entirely), making sure you get only the best scouts/coaches, giving yourself a huge budget, or just picking the biggest budget teams, even using the editor to give your players talent boosts if that's the sort of thing you're into.

But if you play the game without visible ratings, or even with visible ratings but without taking advantage of a lot of the above mentioned stuff, then I'd say it's not really that easy to create a dominant team. In fact it can be quite difficult to even create a decent team at times.

I find that I try not to game the system early on with a new team. I'll deal for prospects, I won't make insane deals. I play on limited budgets (not always my choice). But then invariably I'll make it to the playoffs, and get beat. Then the next year, I get a little closer to winning it all. Then the next year, I feel that I've built up a team that should win, but don't. Then I don't cheat after that, but after coming close and being frustrated, I relax my rules. Suddenly my self-imposed 100M budget becomes 110M. I do a deal for that perfect 2B for my team that I wouldn't have done the year before. And before too long, I have my dynasty set up.

If I were, let's say, the real life Blue Jays GM, this is the year I'd sign McCann and Cano in the off-season to bulk out my roster, push my payroll to the max. And then when I can't afford all my players next year, I'd trade Cano for a good pitching prospect while he still had value. In real life, you wouldn't really be able to get away with that, or you wouldn't be able to do that too much, but in the game there's little flaws with it.

[le receveur]

Originally Posted by UWHabs

If I were, let's say, the real life Blue Jays GM, this is the year I'd sign McCann and Cano in the off-season to bulk out my roster, push my payroll to the max. And then when I can't afford all my players next year, I'd trade Cano for a good pitching prospect while he still had value. In real life, you wouldn't really be able to get away with that, or you wouldn't be able to do that too much, but in the game there's little flaws with it.

Jeffrey Loria disagrees. (surprised the Salty contract yesterday isn't 2/10/12)

[stevebydac]

I don't recall the exact records, but I built a dominant team that won about 98-115 games for 6 straight years in OOTP9. I didn't take much advantage of the AI, I was fairly reasonable in trading, etc and didn't pick up players on waivers. I did have a big market budget though so I loaded up on big contracts. I think I won four WS.

Anyway, after feeling quite cocky, I quit that team and took over a struggling club. Imagine the indignity when the team I left won about 110-120 games three years in a row, with three WS, with an AI manager instead of me!

[The Game]

I will post later on with final results and this team is 90% custom.
1B Steve Arashikage rookie (Lou Gehrig but with speed and better D)
2B Jack Johnson rookie (Billy Hamilton as a 2B)
3B Fred Jones rookie (Joe Crede)
SS Doug Johnson rookie (Joe DiMaggio at age 23)
LF Lamont Morris (Rickey Henderson edited 1991)
CF Brett Scott (custom edited stat line of .367 67 HR 123BB)
RF Garret Jackson (Bo Jackson)
C Sammy Hicks rookie (Joe Girardi)
DH Sterling Thomas (Frank Thomas)

SS Juan Ramirez (Alexei Ramirez)

SP Steve Foster ( JackMcDowell edited)
Sp Steve Laurence (Cliff Lee edited best season)
SP Steve Michaels (John Smoltz edited best season)
Sp Nick Simmons custom 235 K)

MR Lee Regger (Matt Thornton)
MR Tom Tregger (Roberto Hernandez)
CL Peter Trapp (custom 60 IP 109 K)

[Papi]

Definitely not the most dominant team I have ever put together, but he is by far the best pitcher I have ever had. Granted, it's only 1 1/2 years into the league, but so far he's pretty darn impressive.

[Fyrestorm3]

I would just like to say, to anyone who might worry that the game is too easy, my current MLB dynasty has seen me make the playoffs in 4 out of 7 years, but I've never advanced past the ALDS. If the game is too easy, I'm playing it wrong.

It's been a great run, though. I've always wanted to write up a Dynasty Report for it, but I'd never have the commitment to continually post.

I should also note that I do play a variation of stats-only, so take that as you will.

[fromtheline]

Originally Posted by Papi

Definitely not the most dominant team I have ever put together, but he is by far the best pitcher I have ever had. Granted, it's only 1 1/2 years into the league, but so far he's pretty darn impressive.

A 31-year-old dominating college batters, I wouldn't be as surprised..

[Papi]

Originally Posted by fromtheline

A 31-year-old dominating college batters, I wouldn't be as surprised..

Not sure if sarcasm or not......I hope so though as they aren't college teams. Well, they are in name, but that's it.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

I would just like to say, to anyone who might worry that the game is too easy, my current MLB dynasty has seen me make the playoffs in 4 out of 7 years, but I've never advanced past the ALDS. If the game is too easy, I'm playing it wrong.

It's been a great run, though. I've always wanted to write up a Dynasty Report for it, but I'd never have the commitment to continually post.

I should also note that I do play a variation of stats-only, so take that as you will.

Playing stats-only makes OOTP much harder. You've done well.

[tayloraj]

In my latest historical replay, the 1981 A's (an AI-controlled team) just went 123-39, scoring 844 runs while allowing only 489 en route to a 4-2 World Series triumph. Tom Seaver led the pitching staff at 24-10, 2.37 while fifth starter and rotation ERA trailer (at 3.03) Mike Parrott went 23-3. Every regular in the lineup managed at least 1.2 WAR, with four players exceeding 5 WAR each. Absolutely the most dominant team I've ever seen in this version of OOTP, and constructed without the inherent advantages given to human players.

[D-BacksJosh]

I have had dominate teams in the past, but only because I have self created players and or my team was operating way over budget. Once I made the decision to stick to the budget and stay in the green OOTP is much more of a challenge. Of course I have always controlled small market teams on top of that. If this ever changes for me I will definitely try stats-only. The only issue I have with going stats-only at the moment is that I would probably be forced to create feeder leagues to obtain stats for the first year player draft and I am not really interested in doing that.

[pjh5165]

Originally Posted by D-BacksJosh

. The only issue I have with going stats-only at the moment is that I would probably be forced to create feeder leagues to obtain stats for the first year player draft and I am not really interested in doing that.

I have the same exact reason for being wary of my possible future transition to stats-only. Luckily I am in the same boat and find the game challenging enough as it is right now so it shouldn't be an issue any time soon.

[PSUColonel]

I think Washington could be headed to being one of the best. Unfortunately they are in my division. Believe it or not, it's August 5th and I am still two games out of the wildcard.